Entitlement
According to Wikipedia, "An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.
In clinical psychology and psychiatry, an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder, seen in those who 'because of early frustrations...arrogate to themselves the right to demand lifelong reimbursement from fate'[2]."
Republicans and Libertarians attempt to merge these two nuances of the word "entitlement" in order to cast a negative shadow on demands for economic justice and social responsibility. They do not seem to understand that deprivation breeds a attitude of narcissistic entitlement in human beings. This lies at the heart of generational poverty, encouraged by unscientific government policies. Or, if they do understand these concepts, they wish to ignore that understanding to benefit their own wallets.
As a humanist, I believe equal rights, food, shelter, health care, meaningful work and a nonviolent environment should be basic entitlements, awarded to all human beings at birth. We are still very far as a species from providing these basic entitlements to all human beings. Why?
Is it because the planet cannot provide the means for providing these entitlements? No. I believe the planet could sustain a population determined to provide these entitlements to all its members. Even at the current state of environmental deterioration of Earth, technology could be utilized at the expense of war and politics to provide these entitlements.
So, what are the obstacles to providing these entitlements to all human beings? Perhaps the greatest obstacle is the education gap between those in political and economic power and those out of power. As we see now in North Africa, a boom of a better educated young adult population changes the social and political terrain drastically in a relatively short period of time. Educated young people, with untarnished ideals and energy, are an engine for social and political change in the direction of providing basic human entitlements to all citizens in society.
A simple mathematical obstacle to providing basic entitlements in society lies in population and the distribution of wealth in population. Free-market capitalism in its pure form encourages high birth rates. This is based in the premise that the base of the population pyramid produce laborers to support the relatively tiny apex. In other words, the very structure of society, as seen by free-marketeers is statically and functionally unjust. It claims to be based in meritocracy, but, in practice, it is meritocracy of the aggressive, who then rig the stakes by transferring hereditary wealth and provenance. It is also unscientific, in a holistic sense of the word.It disregards alternate hypothetical models of economic structure to deal with burgeoning populations with longer life expectancies in degraded environments. Free-market capitalism is an absolutist ideology, like a religion or rigid Communism. It is not science.
The most basic obstacle to providing basic entitlements to all human beings lies in the state of human reproduction. As long as a woman is guaranteed the basic right or entitlement to conceive and deliver another human being without restraint or consideration of her capacity to raise a child responsibly, then the society that grants that entitlement bears responsibility for the human being who is brought into that society. In an educated and civil society which strongly supports religious ideologies which promote unrestrained reproduction and suppresses sex education, it is unethical for politicians to even suggest that basic human service budgets be restrained in any way that inhibits basic human entitlements. It is unethical for politicians to oppose universal health care. It is unethical for politicians to obstruct education funding. It unethical for politicians to limit the collection of taxes for providing for all human beings.
A certain amount of narcissistic entitlement is healthy in current society. The archetypal African-American woman, a product of sexist and racial oppression, who is angry and puts up with no nonsense, promotes social consciousness and brings attention to the plight of her people. The archetypal gay man with an acid tongue who refuses to be cowed by homophobia also promotes awareness and combats prejudice. In a Freudian or Jungian Utopia, angry entitlement is seen as dysfunctional, diseased. In a real world, where people are born into oppression, neglect and poverty, angry entitlement can fuel a civil rights movement.
Entitlement is not a dirty word. It refers to the human contract between individual and society. It is true protection for the unborn. It is a truly pro-life mechanism for improving the human condition. How government approaches basic human entitlements is a measure of its humanity and morality.
In clinical psychology and psychiatry, an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder, seen in those who 'because of early frustrations...arrogate to themselves the right to demand lifelong reimbursement from fate'[2]."Republicans and Libertarians attempt to merge these two nuances of the word "entitlement" in order to cast a negative shadow on demands for economic justice and social responsibility. They do not seem to understand that deprivation breeds a attitude of narcissistic entitlement in human beings. This lies at the heart of generational poverty, encouraged by unscientific government policies. Or, if they do understand these concepts, they wish to ignore that understanding to benefit their own wallets.
As a humanist, I believe equal rights, food, shelter, health care, meaningful work and a nonviolent environment should be basic entitlements, awarded to all human beings at birth. We are still very far as a species from providing these basic entitlements to all human beings. Why?
Is it because the planet cannot provide the means for providing these entitlements? No. I believe the planet could sustain a population determined to provide these entitlements to all its members. Even at the current state of environmental deterioration of Earth, technology could be utilized at the expense of war and politics to provide these entitlements.
So, what are the obstacles to providing these entitlements to all human beings? Perhaps the greatest obstacle is the education gap between those in political and economic power and those out of power. As we see now in North Africa, a boom of a better educated young adult population changes the social and political terrain drastically in a relatively short period of time. Educated young people, with untarnished ideals and energy, are an engine for social and political change in the direction of providing basic human entitlements to all citizens in society.
A simple mathematical obstacle to providing basic entitlements in society lies in population and the distribution of wealth in population. Free-market capitalism in its pure form encourages high birth rates. This is based in the premise that the base of the population pyramid produce laborers to support the relatively tiny apex. In other words, the very structure of society, as seen by free-marketeers is statically and functionally unjust. It claims to be based in meritocracy, but, in practice, it is meritocracy of the aggressive, who then rig the stakes by transferring hereditary wealth and provenance. It is also unscientific, in a holistic sense of the word.It disregards alternate hypothetical models of economic structure to deal with burgeoning populations with longer life expectancies in degraded environments. Free-market capitalism is an absolutist ideology, like a religion or rigid Communism. It is not science.
The most basic obstacle to providing basic entitlements to all human beings lies in the state of human reproduction. As long as a woman is guaranteed the basic right or entitlement to conceive and deliver another human being without restraint or consideration of her capacity to raise a child responsibly, then the society that grants that entitlement bears responsibility for the human being who is brought into that society. In an educated and civil society which strongly supports religious ideologies which promote unrestrained reproduction and suppresses sex education, it is unethical for politicians to even suggest that basic human service budgets be restrained in any way that inhibits basic human entitlements. It is unethical for politicians to oppose universal health care. It is unethical for politicians to obstruct education funding. It unethical for politicians to limit the collection of taxes for providing for all human beings.
A certain amount of narcissistic entitlement is healthy in current society. The archetypal African-American woman, a product of sexist and racial oppression, who is angry and puts up with no nonsense, promotes social consciousness and brings attention to the plight of her people. The archetypal gay man with an acid tongue who refuses to be cowed by homophobia also promotes awareness and combats prejudice. In a Freudian or Jungian Utopia, angry entitlement is seen as dysfunctional, diseased. In a real world, where people are born into oppression, neglect and poverty, angry entitlement can fuel a civil rights movement.
Entitlement is not a dirty word. It refers to the human contract between individual and society. It is true protection for the unborn. It is a truly pro-life mechanism for improving the human condition. How government approaches basic human entitlements is a measure of its humanity and morality.
Comments
Post a Comment